4 ms·

> Can you imagine if to make a sightseeing trip to another city you had to stop in the middle of the highway and then make 14 round-trips with a second car to f

> Can you imagine if to make a sightseeing trip to another city you had to stop in the middle of the highway and then make 14 round-trips with a second car to fill your first car back up? If the alternative was throwing away and building/buying a new car for every trip? Absolutely. They said the same about landing a first stage booster - impossible and pointless to attempt. And it just happened for the 400th time yesterday.

fluoridation 1y ago
And yet the boosters are not being reused. They're just making brand new engines for every launch. If we're generous they're being dismantled and recycled.
- stetrain 1y ago
  They were talking about Falcon 9, which is absolutely being reused.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    Alright, if we're talking about Falcon 9, I don't know what the cost savings are for a reusable rocket, or if there are any. If someone has that data, feel free to provide it.
    - 0xffff2 1y ago
      There are a lot of variables, but very roughly, the Falcon 9 has cut launch costs in half compared to its competitors.
    - Powdering7082 1y ago
      > As of 2024, SpaceX's internal costs for a Falcon 9 launch are estimated between $15 million[186] and $28 million,[185] factoring in workforce expenses, refurbishment, assembly, operations, and facility depreciation.[187] These efficiencies are primarily due to the reuse of first-stage boosters and payload fairings.[188] The second stage, which is not reused, is believed to be the largest expense per launch, with the company's COO stating that each costs $12 million to produce.[189] From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing
dmbche 1y ago
False dichotomy - the mission profile dictates the refuelling station and all that, but it never was the only option. Somehow we've decided we needed to be able to do lots of trips to the moon for Artemis, but it's not clear to me that it's such a precious golden oportunity and warrants this spending/impact on the environnenent. We didn't get to the moon with a refuelling station did we? How come we need one now? We're really seeing 15 starship launches per moon trip as reasonable, rather than just building a single trip program? The mission itself is nonsensical. The problems are stemming from the SLS, I'll find a link to a relevant source.
- stetrain 1y ago
  The Apollo missions landed two crew members in a tin can with extreme limits on what weight they could bring with them in either direction. A single trip launch will always be constrained like this due to the tyranny of the rocket equation. A modular mission system with multiple launches is the best way to expand capabilities and enable things like landing larger payloads for more advanced or long-term missions.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    There's never going to be long-term crewed missions to the Moon. It has no scientific value. Even the little exploration we did in the '60s and '70s were a dubious proposition. There's not that much we could do by sending people that we couldn't do by sending robots.
    - stetrain 1y ago
      If you think there's no value to returning to the moon, building a base, etc. then fine. But you keep moving the goalposts of what you are taking issue with here.
      - fluoridation 1y ago
        I didn't move any goalposts. 1. Starship is never going to be usable for a Moon mission. 2. There's little scientific value in Moon missions. 3. There's never going to be long-term missions to the Moon. I maintain all three simultaneously.

fluoridation 1y ago

And yet the boosters are not being reused. They're just making brand new engines for every launch. If we're generous they're being dismantled and recycled.

stetrain 1y ago
They were talking about Falcon 9, which is absolutely being reused.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  Alright, if we're talking about Falcon 9, I don't know what the cost savings are for a reusable rocket, or if there are any. If someone has that data, feel free to provide it.
  - 0xffff2 1y ago
    There are a lot of variables, but very roughly, the Falcon 9 has cut launch costs in half compared to its competitors.
  - Powdering7082 1y ago
    > As of 2024, SpaceX's internal costs for a Falcon 9 launch are estimated between $15 million[186] and $28 million,[185] factoring in workforce expenses, refurbishment, assembly, operations, and facility depreciation.[187] These efficiencies are primarily due to the reuse of first-stage boosters and payload fairings.[188] The second stage, which is not reused, is believed to be the largest expense per launch, with the company's COO stating that each costs $12 million to produce.[189] From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Pricing

dmbche 1y ago

False dichotomy - the mission profile dictates the refuelling station and all that, but it never was the only option. Somehow we've decided we needed to be able to do lots of trips to the moon for Artemis, but it's not clear to me that it's such a precious golden oportunity and warrants this spending/impact on the environnenent. We didn't get to the moon with a refuelling station did we? How come we need one now? We're really seeing 15 starship launches per moon trip as reasonable, rather than just building a single trip program? The mission itself is nonsensical. The problems are stemming from the SLS, I'll find a link to a relevant source.

stetrain 1y ago
The Apollo missions landed two crew members in a tin can with extreme limits on what weight they could bring with them in either direction. A single trip launch will always be constrained like this due to the tyranny of the rocket equation. A modular mission system with multiple launches is the best way to expand capabilities and enable things like landing larger payloads for more advanced or long-term missions.
- fluoridation 1y ago
  There's never going to be long-term crewed missions to the Moon. It has no scientific value. Even the little exploration we did in the '60s and '70s were a dubious proposition. There's not that much we could do by sending people that we couldn't do by sending robots.
  - stetrain 1y ago
    If you think there's no value to returning to the moon, building a base, etc. then fine. But you keep moving the goalposts of what you are taking issue with here.
    - fluoridation 1y ago
      I didn't move any goalposts. 1. Starship is never going to be usable for a Moon mission. 2. There's little scientific value in Moon missions. 3. There's never going to be long-term missions to the Moon. I maintain all three simultaneously.